Originally Posted by Uber Blu

Which SPECIFIC Federal law?

Originally Posted by silver arrow

The federal tampering prohibition is contained in section 203(a)(3) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3). Section 203(a)(3)(A) of the Act prohibits any person from removing or rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in any motor vehicle in compliance with regulations under Title II of the Act (i.e., regulations requiring certification that vehicles meet federal emissions standards). The maximum civil penalty for a violation of this section by a manufacturer or dealer is $25,000; for any other person, $2,500. Accordingly, any change from the original certified configuration of a vehicle or engine, or the manufacture or sale of a non-original equipment aftermarket part or system could be considered a violation of section 203(a)(3) of the Act. This would include modifications to the fuel delivery system.

The Clean Air Act (Act) requires vehicle and engine manufacturers to certify that their vehicles will meet federal emission standards for the model year in which they were built, and they design and install the systems and components necessary to meet those standards. Federal emissions standards have applied to motor vehicles since 1968.
Section 203(a)(3) of the Act prohibits any person from permanently removing or rendering inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in any motor vehicle by the manufacturer for that vehicle to meet federal emission standards. Vehicles which have had emission control systems removed or modified can contribute up to five times the amount of pollution to the atmosphere as identical vehicles with the devices and systems properly installed. Accordingly, any change from the original certified configuration of a vehicle could be considered a violation of section 203(a)(3). This provision applies to all light-duty motor vehicles sold or offered for sale in the United States since 1968.

Originally Posted by chows4us

That is simply not true. Whether you pass emissions or not, it might be illegal. See http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/title2.html#iia

States have their own laws. If you remove safety equipment, it might also be illegal.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

It's simple, the dealer that sold the car is liable. If they want to go after the original seller, that's their decision. Your right, what was I thinking, he should just suck up a $9000 bill because of someone else's negligence.

Originally Posted by mushadd

... but it is illegal to remove or modify any component that has to do with emissions, ....

Originally Posted by silver arrow

1. Is it tampering to install a dual exhaust system on a vehicle originally equipped with a single exhaust?

Yes. The general rule is that a motor vehicle emission control system (which includes the exhaust configuration) may not be changed from an EPA certified configuration without subjecting the repair shop to liability for violating the federal tampering prohibition. The exhaust system configuration, including the location of the converters, and exhaust pipe diameter and length, are items specified by the manufacturer because engines and some of the associated emissions systems are generally affected by the exhaust system backpressure, which subsequently affects vehicle emissions. The installation of a dual exhaust system with two converters would, therefore, be considered tampering. ? It would not be considered tampering to install a dual exhaust system with two converters if the vehicle manufacturer certified an identical engine-chassis configuration for the vehicle model year or newer that includes such an exhaust configuration.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

2. If I pass a standard state inspection test (i.e., a "sniff" or Inspection/Maintenance Test) is my vehicle legal?

No. The testing that the manufacturers perform to demonstrate compliance with Federal standards is more comprehensive and accurate than the idle tests used by the Inspection/Maintenance (I/M) programs. For example, the procedures for light-duty cars and trucks require the vehicles to undergo prescribed sequences of fueling, parking, and operating in order to simulate an average trip in an urban area. Heavy-duty engine testing requires a similar transient mode testing procedure. During these procedures, the emissions are sampled continuously over the entire test cycle for subsequent analyses of specific components by prescribed analytical techniques. These procedures are more representative of in-use operation than any state or locally run idle emissions test.

Idle emissions tests used by state I/M programs are designed merely as screening tests for identifying gross emitting vehicles which have not had proper maintenance (spark plug replacements, air filter changes, timing adjustments, carburetion adjustments, etc.), and not to detect whether specific emission control components are present and operational. The tests usually only involve the insertion of a probe into the tail-pipe of the vehicle while the vehicle is idling and instantaneously measuring the exhaust emissions. These tests are not as stringent or accurate as the Federal test procedures and the results are not comparable. It would be inaccurate to assume that just because a vehicle "passes" an idle test that it could also pass Federal standards.

Originally Posted by caminifan

If you are referring to adding what is commonly referred to as a "cat-back" (e.g. from the end of the catalytic converter back to the tailpipe) exhaust being emmissions illegal, then you are unfortunately mis-informed. The emissions control system ends at the catalytic converter. Anything after the converter is not subject to federal or state emissions laws. There may be an issue regarding noise, but the last I checked, noise was not covered under federal emission control law or regulations. I realize you are referring for the most part to converter-forward, but you are also making reference to exhaust back-pressure, which is an item that a cat-back exhaust usually affects. Therefore, my post is more of a clarification.


That is an interesting point. While you might technically be correct, do you really think that the U.S. EPA is going to launch an enforcement action against every individual who puts on an aftermarket performance part? Even going after commercial entities is reserved for those that do the modifications day-after-day. In this circumstance, the dealer has a very viable defense - I didn't do it. And you are going to be challenged to prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by caminifan

How much do you think it is going to cost to prove from an evidenciary point (remember this will be litigated) that the dealer who sold the car sold it with "illegal" mods on it? Ever try to prove a negative? Do you think that the person who sold the car to the dealer is going to sign an affidavit acknowledging that they put mods on the car before they sold it???? Everyone is going to have memory problems.... $9,000 is chump change compared to what it would cost to prove who made the mods.

Originally Posted by chows4us

Yo guys, enough with the name calling

Have any of you read Marks latest thread on the NEW RESPECT rules? How about some respect for each other???

I pointed out the law in Post #62, All you had to do was click the link and read

Silver was kind enough to post much of it afterwards

Comments about what LEOs may do have nothing to do with the Clean Air Act.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

You are kidding, right?

Originally Posted by Uber Blu

Nope...not kidding.

When I posted my comment, I didn't see the other posts that had a link in them; I guess THAT didn't occur to you, eh?

I must say, if the tone that comes across when you post is the way you talk in real life, you must be very unpleasant to be around!

Originally Posted by resmini

Did you miss his explanation for his feelings of superiority?

He said he was doctor, and in the Navy...he can't help himself. I worked for years in a nuclear power plant with some ex-Navy nukes. It took them years after they got out of the Navy to sort of deflate from the ego-pump the Navy had them hooked up to. Most of them eventually turned out to be pretty nice people though.

Originally Posted by mushadd

there is actually a horror story on MU posted by Randy at M7 about a fellow motorer who has seen first hand that modifying emissions is a violation of the law. (it started with just a CAI and Coil pack)

Originally Posted by silver arrow

Ah, come on Dad, we were just having a little fun This is the most lively thread I've seen in NAM. That's got to count for something.

Originally Posted by silver arrow

... I just couldn't believe that the Mini community as a whole did not know about the Clean Air Act. Coming from the Subaru community, they are all aware of it because the Japanese import market is singled out as offenders and hassled. We have vendor that have been fined by the EPA and threatened. Be glad that the Mini community is able to fly under the radar.

...

Originally Posted by silver arrow

...Accordingly, any change from the original certified configuration of a vehicle could be considered a violation of section 203(a)(3)...

Originally Posted by silver arrow

Ah, come on Dad, we were just having a little fun This is the most lively thread I've seen in NAM. That's got to count for something.

Originally Posted by HighSchoolzMINI

thats kinda worrying im about to do the 17% pulley by Alta, anybody have a high mileage MCS with a pulley thats doing okay?

Originally Posted by rubyred3

well, the dealer can always claim that the mods weren't on there when the car was sold, and that you put them on there, and even if you are 100% right, you'd have an awful hard time proving it. . .

Originally Posted by 10851CS

Just have the previous owner show up in court and he can prove he put them on before selling it.

Very easy to do.

Earl

Originally Posted by silver arrow

It may be possible to put a little pressure on the dealership that sold the car to help with the costs, even if he never plans to go through with it. A little threat, some bad press and all of the sudden they are willing to pay half the costs.

I'm a physician in the Navy. Most of the cases the Navy settles for malpractice are winnable but it is cheaper and easier to settle. It may be easier for the dealer to help him then worry about a lawsuit or bad press.

Originally Posted by Eric_Rowland

Big difference between COULD and IS. Thank you for the citation.




It would be nice if it counted for a strike.
So you're trolling then. Got it.
Have a nice day.

Originally Posted by caminifan

I thought that the selling dealer offered to share the cost of installing the replacement ('04) engine. That sounds like the dealer is trying to be responsive....